All this 802.15.4 mesh networking connects all these HA devices to each other, but how do they get to the internet? Does a home router/access point need to support this protocol, too, to actually connect those devices to the services that make them useful? Is there another bridge piece of hardware to buy?

Also, what's wrong with Wi-Fi? Entering complicated passwords into devices with minimal-to-no UI can be a pain, but is there something else, too? Comparatively complicated protocol that's more expensive to implement and draws more power?Reply

The mesh network figures it out, as long as one of the mesh is connected to the internet. So yes, ultimately a home router is involved.

The problem with Wifi is both power and reach. In a Wifi network, typically each device must be within reach of the Wifi router. Mesh networks just have to be in reach of another device, which can pass it along. And with 6LoWPAN or 802.11ah, etc. they are much lower power consumption and lower data rate (since small sensors like your fridge should be sending limited data). Reply

I generally agree, although it depends on how soon 802.11ah products will be available. Ganesh is all over that so I look forward to his next update on that. Hopefully manufacturers will have an updated opinion of market timing when the draft 2.0 voting is reviewed and discussed this week at an IEEE conference.Reply

I just read the voting comments to the 2nd draft of 802.11ah. I'd say this std will undergo a bit more review. Here's one of the comments from the chair of the entire 802.11 group:

"The S1G study group started with the intent of "re-banding" .11 for the use case of meter reading, i.e., to support existing proprietary functionality. I believe the assumption at the time was this would be a small and quick project.

But I look at what we have - a 582 page draft, which is bigger than .11n, .11ac, .11ad. It has morphed into something that includes multiple kitchen sinks and re-invents mesh and other MAC features like RD.

I believe it has gone way beyond the orginal expectations in terms of scope, and exceeds the scope in the PAR.

I realize that the comment resolution group have no workable way of responding positively to this comment. However, that doesn't invalidate my comment on scope."Reply